Archives

Conversation of The Minds

GMan: i had a thought last week
GMan: do u realize that everytrhing we do is to “feel good” in one way or another.. mentally or physically
VMind: yeah
VMind: but it’s some kind of “good”, whether that be feeling, or being, or good of the species, etc
VMind: if it was just “feeling” good for self… then there would be no such thing as sacrifice for others.. but that also, indirectly, is to feel good
GMan: we’re all stuck in this “feel good” adiction
VMind: but “feel good” is too selfish and direct to be accurate
GMan: but it’s true
VMind: feel good can be in many different ways
VMind: even self sacrifice is to feel good… but directly, it could be feeling bad
GMan: yes.. but in ur mind.. it feels good
GMan: u have hope
VMind: if you die for others? how are you feeling directly good?
GMan: in ur mind u feel good
GMan: knowing ur doing it for others.. it makes u feel good
VMind: it doesn’t feel good.
GMan: in ur mind..
GMan: in ur mind..
GMan: the alternative is worse
VMind: you[‘re driven by obligation, or moral imperative
GMan: the alternative is worse
GMan: thus it’s the best choice
VMind: driven by responsibility
GMan: and thus.. the best feel good alternative
VMind: I can agree with the statement, but it can be easily misunderstood
GMan: it’s true
GMan: so simple but true
VMind: it’s like Ayn Rands idea of acting selfishly all the time.. that that’s the best course of action
GMan: in that sense… yes it’s true
VMind: that being “selfish” is the most ogical and good thing
GMan: not sure about thtat
GMan: i’m just sahing that we all live to feel good
VMind: but looking at a narrow way is not good.. .
VMind: Rand’s idea of “selfishness” is not good
GMan: everytihng we do is to that end
GMan: whatever we buy
GMan: whatever we eat
VMind: she believed you should only do what is good for you
GMan: we listen to
GMan: watch
GMan: it’s to feel good
VMind: I think our biological imperative is wider than the simple idea of “feeling good”
GMan: whatever, we earn and buy and surround ourselves with.. it’s to feel good more ofteh, as much as we can, as often as we can,
VMind: but it’s not feeling good just for “self” per se
VMind: again… I can agree with Rand’s statement abuot acting ‘selfishly”, if looked at from a broad and enlightened way… but in her “narrow” way, I would disagree
VMind: the seeking of “feeling good”, looked at from a broad way, I agree
VMind: but from a narrow perspective, I disagree
GMan: i’m just saing that everything we do is for the purpose of tring to feel good
GMan: to be happy
GMan: as often, and as much as we can
VMind: yes… to be happy… but what is our idea of “self”?
VMind: we want to be “self happy”… but how do we define “self”?
VMind: that’s where the issue is
GMan: anyways….
GMan: taht’s not what i’m arguing here
VMind: people who are selfish in a “bad” way define “self” in the most narrow way
GMan: i’m just arguing taht we live to “feel good” and we strive for this every moment
VMind: people who are more “human” define “self” in a broader way
VMind: but ultimately.. yeah.. it’s “self”
GMan: the question then is… is this what we should live for?
VMind: yes… but how do you define “self”?
GMan: to perceive happiness and “feel good” vibes?
VMind: you want to feel good.. but who is “you”?
GMan: that’s another chapter man
GMan: i can ask.. who are we, if all we seek is “happiness” or “feel good”
GMan: what should we be living for?
GMan: is life that empty and simple?
VMind: yes, I agree that we all seek happiness and to feel good… immortality… etc
GMan: that life is controlled or dictated by the amount of endorphiens being released from our brains?
VMind: but how do we define “self”??… that’s where morality comes in
VMind: where philosophy and religion comes in
VMind: don’t think it’s as simple as hormones
VMind: humans are willing to sacrifice pain and suffering for good of others
VMind: thus, defining “good of self” to mean something broader than their own bodies
VMind: to equate “feeling good” with endorphins or hormones is too simplistic and wrong
VMind: endorphines and hormones plays just a small part, I would think
VMind: only animals and immature people are driven solely by direct “feelings”
GMan: i think we all are
VMind: a sign of maturity is willing to give up current good feelings for future good feelings
VMind: feelings in the here and now, I mean
VMind: that’s immature and childish
GMan: but that’s how it is
VMind: for immature people
VMind: for children
VMind: for neurotic people
VMind: for people who ony live for “today”, in the literal sense
VMind: but most people sacrifice today for tomorrow… to get overall better feeling or good
GMan: but that hope is what gives them “feel good”
GMan: and over rides the current pain
GMan: the hope gives them enuf feel good
VMind: yeah, but that’s a more mature ability to be able to go by that “hope” or “expectation”
VMind: but it’s not as feel good, physically, as the real thing
VMind: it’s mental
VMind: if you subscribe to the idea of simply endorphins or hormones.. then you’d expect people to just be driven by physical feelings
VMind: not mental feelings… of hope, expectation
GMan: i think hope also releases endorphins though
GMan: it must
GMan: cuz every emotion is chemical
VMind: as much as the real thing??
VMind: eating chocolate is the same as expecting to eat 2x the chocolate tomorrow?
VMind: emotion is chemical… but expectation of something is not a feeling
VMind: the expectation is mental… but there will be residual emotioal stuff, obviously
VMind: emotion is physical
GMan: i think it is
VMind: my argument is that if humans are driven purely by “feeling” per se… than the feeling of eating chocolate now is defitely going to be bigger than the “idea” of eating more chocolate later
GMan: eerything can be broken down into a chemical process
GMan: not necessarily
VMind: have you been talking to Sig?
GMan: not about this
GMan: this is my ideas man
VMind: I think it’s too simplistic
GMan: that’s y
GMan: it’s so simplistic but true
VMind: your argument doesn’t hold by the evidence
VMind: if we’re driven solely by feeling… then why would we sacrifice eating chocolate now for eating chocolate tomorrow?
GMan: cuz the hope of eating it later can be a greater high
VMind: how can the actual feeling of eating chocolate compare with just the idea of eating chocolate later?
GMan: cuz u wanna save it later
GMan: cuz that 2nd choc bar may only give u 20% benefit
GMan: eatig it later could give u 100%
VMind: I mean the idea o feating 1 unit of choc. now… or getting 2 units of choc. later by waiting
VMind: if we’re simply driven by direct chemical process.. then we won’t wait
GMan: ur thinking too much about this
GMan: yes it can
GMan: saving $ for a rainy day dude
GMan: it gives u a good feeling
GMan: that security
GMan: knowing u have it
VMind: ok
GMan: it gives u a good feeling
GMan: saving food for later
GMan: gives u a secure feelling
VMind: anyways… the idea of doing stuff to feel good still as the variable of “self”… and how that is defined
VMind: and that makes all the difference
VMind: “feeling” is simply evolution’s way of making us do things
VMind: feeling is the motor, the driver
VMind: emotions
VMind: emotions and feelings translate into action
GMan: i htink ur missing my insightful point
GMan: reading too much into it
VMind: the idea of doing stuff to feel good is an old idea
GMan: it’s really much simpler than that
VMind: the question is how you define “self”
GMan: my idea is very very simple but so true
VMind: who is “you”?
GMan: the self is every individual living on planet earth
GMan: i’m defining self as everyone alive and kicking
GMan: not on a metaphysical level
VMind: Don’t you remember me making a similar statement when we were kids? I said that everything we do is to feel good, in some way… even self sacrifice
GMan: but just on a human level
GMan: well.. that’s true
GMan: it’s the basis of everything we do
VMind: self is NOT necessarily every indiviidual thing on the planet
VMind: if that was so… then we’d all live for ourselves
VMind: but we don’t
VMind: we live for each other as well
GMan: again.. ur taking it too far
VMind: as social animals, humans def. live for each otehr
VMind: our perception of ‘self’ is generally greater than our physical idividual bodies
VMind: those who define ‘self’ as their body alone are usually considered neurotic or psychotic
VMind: so we have degrees of self
GMan: ur missing the moon for the finger man
VMind: so sometimes we do things to make our narrow self feel good.. other times, we sacrifice our narrow self for greater self
VMind: what am I missing?
GMan: whatever it is.. it makes “us” feel good
VMind: I agree that we do things to “feel good”… although that to me is more secondary… it’s more of a “driver” that nature uses to make us do things
GMan: actually, nature may not care
GMan: it just wants us to reproduce
VMind: I thiink there’s more of an underlying imperative that pushes us… but feeling is used to goad us to atino
GMan: whether we do it in pain or joy
VMind: action
VMind: yeah… reproduction and immortality seems to be nature’s imperative
VMind: reproduction and preservation… the ultimate goal being immortality
VMind: but what is the point of immortality?
GMan: ur getting into other topics now
VMind: I think you can explain all human behavior… all animal behavior.. by those 2 imperatives… reproduction and preservation
GMan: my question is.. if everytihng in life is about “trying to maintain feeling good as often and as much as we can…” .. is life really so vacuous and vain?
GMan: what then has meaning?
GMan: does anything have meaning?
VMind: men are more inclined to preserve… women more to reproduce.. thus their gender differences
VMind: I think the good feeling is a way for nature to get us to do things
VMind: good feeling and bad feeling
VMind: but this is the physical self
VMind: maybe there’s something beyon the material world
VMind: we’re defining the laws of the material world
VMind: but that doesn’t mean reality consists just by the laws of the material world
VMind: if you think the material world is all there is… then it can be seen as empty and vacuous
GMan: even in the metaphysical world.. i have no clue what hsa meaning
GMan: perhaps nothing does
VMind: thus the search
VMind: search for something transcendental
GMan: i just know that as a living entity.. we all vainlessly seek “feel good”
VMind: again.. to feel good… irionically
VMind: it makes us feel good to search for that
GMan: yes.. thats what i mean!!!
GMan: it’s all to feel good!!
GMan: for peace
GMan: happiness
GMan: to feel good
VMind: maybe there’s a congruence between the material and metaphysical…
VMind: the material drives us to search for something beyond
VMind: Buddhists might argue that
VMind: or so it seems from the zen books too
VMind: the material world in the end, forces us to look for something beyond
VMind: Anyways, in this idea of “feeling good”… the idea of “self” and how that is defined is critical
VMind: it’s meaningless without that… cause it can mean anything from complete narcicissm to the other end
VMind: I view emotions and hormones and endorhines from a very biological, evolutionary point of view… the way nature makes us do certain things in the material, physical world
GMan: the feel good has to be balanced
VMind: if you’re a materialist… then I guess you’d think that yu’re a robot
GMan: cuz u’ll feel bad knowingu hurt someone to feel good
VMind: if you thinkt that there mayb e somethinb beyond the material… then that defines just half your reality
VMind: feel good need not be balanced per se.. it’s simply a matter of how you define self… and in that respect, it is balanced between your different ‘selves’
VMind: it’s like sharing a single glove with your left and right hand on a cold day
VMind: both are you.. so you share the glove for the overall good of the two
VMind: but you wouldn’t share a glove with someone else’s hand, normally; cause that’s not you
VMind: it’s only when you broaden your sense of self that you begin to share, sacrifice.. for the overall good of “self”
VMind: but even if you have a broad sense of self.. that doesn’t mean you share equally.. you still have priorities, naturally
VMind: nature will tell us that you shoul have priorities
VMind: in other words.. Buddha would brush his own teeth before trying to brush someone else’s teeth
GMan: ya
GMan: i’m basically disturbed at it’s simplicity
GMan: the simplicity of how and y we live
VMind: but it’s only simple if you define self as your physical self, isn’t it?
VMind: if you define your self as including others, animals, earth, universe… then it gets more complex
VMind: then what is “good” is more complex
GMan: yes..
GMan: so it just depends on ur “perception”
VMind: if it’s just “you”.. .then it’s simply for you to feel good, eat well, nice clothes… simple
VMind: yeah.. perception, I guess
GMan: i think that “interpreteation” is dependent on ur perception
GMan: and each person is different
VMind: Zennists perceive it as everyone… narciccissts define it as their body alone
GMan: yes.. so it depends on what u believe
VMind: two extremes
VMind: yeah
GMan: if u belive it asthus.. then it is
GMan: so it’s all in ur mind
VMind: and you can’t say one is moral or immoral
VMind: they’ll compete in the physical world… and we’ll see who wins
VMind: doesn’t mean it “is”… what “is” may be a different thing
VMind: but it seems to me that to define ‘self” as your body alone is not logical…not proven by experience or reason
GMan: my point is..
GMan: depending on ur “perception”
GMan: pple live to feel good
GMan: based on their perception
GMan: their interpretation of life
VMind: I guess so
VMind: and I’m sure that some poeple are more genetically predisposed to be more narcisistic than others
VMind: it’s part of evolution, probably
VMind: it’s like tigers vs. lions… dogs vs. cats… loners vs. socializers
GMan: yes..
GMan: so depending on their wiring and point of view
GMan: pple live to feel good
GMan: that’s my point
GMan: it’s just to feel good
GMan: feel good in respect to ur wiring and interpretation of life
VMind: feeling good… avoiding pain
GMan: yes
GMan: it’s so simple but true man
VMind: but this feeling can range from very physical to more mental
GMan: yes
VMind: there can be those driven by more physical pleasures… and those driven more by pleasures stemming from ideas, thoughts… which also get translated, to physical feelings, obviously
GMan: again.. dependent on our wiring and programming
GMan: yes…
GMan: but it’s all about “Feeling good”
VMind: so there’s breadth and width to this idea… idea of self being one parameter.. and mental/physical feelings being another
VMind: hedonists vs. stoics
VMind: narcicists vs. zennists
VMind: there’s a word that means those who believe that “self” is the only reality
VMind: so they can all agree about this feling good thing.. .but totally disagree on how each other practices it or realizes it
GMan: anywyas..
GMan: just wanted to get teh simple but true idea across
VMind: but the crucial question is how you pu that into practice… how you interpret that
GMan: it’s an obersation
VMind: that can make the difference between a villain or a saint
GMan: pple will do what they want
GMan: whatever makes them feel good
GMan: the vilain will do his thing
GMan: and the saint will do his
GMan: cuz it makes them feel good
VMind: ok, that much is true

VMind: You wonder why traditionally, they need to study for like 10yrs in the MA to become “masters”… these kids study justa couple years and become champions
GMan: ya
GMan: to learn to fight.. it doesn’t take long
VMind: of course.. it’s just mostly brute strength and power that helps them win
GMan: but to learn forms, discipline, etc.. could take a while
VMind: yup
GMan: besides.. in tradtional martial arts.. they don’t speed u along
VMind: they do a lot less grappling now
GMan: they seem to hold u back
VMind: funny.. .how a lot of the times… they don’t go to the ground anymore..
GMan: ya
VMind: goes to show, I guess, that they had it right… if 2 know how to grapple.. they end up striking
VMind: and sometimes..it’s so hard for one guy who wants to go to the ground to take someone down… before, it seemed so easy
VMind: it seems that short range wing chun punching would be very effective against a lot of these strikers
VMind: these guys have such wide inefficient swings
GMan: i know a guy who fights in cages
GMan: i was talking to him today
VMind: yea?
VMind: and?
GMan: and what?
GMan: he does it part time
GMan: he’s like 40’sh though
VMind: just started in the MA?
GMan: he’s been a tae kwon do and wrestler since college
GMan: a really nice guy
GMan: about 6’4
VMind: I guess he does ok… he’s a big guy
GMan: skinny though
VMind: but all of these endeavors, at the end of the day, is pointless in and of itself
VMind: so you can fight… so waht?… and even then, you’re gonna be beaten by someone else, someday
VMind: you can’t keep up your skills forever
GMan: the real power is in being able to get beat up
VMind: one day you’ll get old, injured, or someone will get better
GMan: if ur willing to get beat up.. then nothing scares u
VMind: yeah.. so there has to be something spiritual, philosophical, you learn from these things
VMind: so these things… all things.. .are just means to self-enlightenments
VMind: whatever you do… in and of itself.. is pointless
VMind: it’s just a tool and means to self enlightenment
VMind: to overcome fears,wants
GMan: isn’t enlightenment pointless too?
VMind: I don’t know
GMan: i’m afraid it might be
VMind: but it promises the greatest “good feeling”
GMan: that’s true
VMind: what is pointless or not pointless is only applicable in the material world, however.
VMind: englightenment implies something transcedental
VMind: beyond the material world… where these laws do not impy
VMind: apply
VMind: where ideas like, “purpose”, “meaning”… does not apply
VMind: to ask what is the purpose or meaning of enlightenment.. is out of context
VMind: purpose and meaning applies only to this physical world
GMan: u can say that the purpose is to feel good
GMan: and that makes perfect sense to me
VMind: as far as this physical world goes, yeah
VMind: but beyond that.. it’s not applicable
GMan: there’s no purpose for enlightenment in the metaphysical world
VMind: right
VMind: in a way, it’s pathetic how these kids pursue fighting in the UFC… .like it’s something so important… like it makes them so “strong” and “powerful”.
VMind: not realizing that power comes from within, actually
VMind: it’s mental and emotional
GMan: yup
GMan: they’re still living in the 5th grade
VMind: yeah, defining power in the most primitive way
VMind: to that extent, UFC is a bad image for the MA
VMind: bad impression
VMind: because it lacks the philosophy
VMind: the underlying teachings behind waht MA is about
VMind: they’ve reduced to just fighting, pugilism
GMan: should start a martial arts school to teach that
VMind: I think most traditional MAs teach that, though
GMan: this guy was telling me about a couple of chinese traditional monks or something in long beach
GMan: that fiht anyone
GMan: and beat up on pple
VMind: fight anyone?
VMind: huh? what?
GMan: they hav some school in long beach
VMind: that’s weird
GMan: didn’t get inot it too much, but he says they are chinese monks
VMind: and he thinks they’re good? or a joke?
GMan: he was giving me an example of some crazy instructors out there
GMan: that teach weird violent things